I have browsed through a few posts on this blog with interest. I am curious about the playtest process: in one of your posts you say that you have been working on this game for 18 months. While you obviously have been playing TNW for a long time, 18 months seems a very short period of time to work on a new game before publication, even if it is a derivative of TNW. Many games, especially the larger games, are playtested for at least double that time before publication. For example, some of the larger OCS games are in development and being actively playtested for over 3 years. While I dont doubt for a moment at your OOB is impressive, I am sceptical of a game that has not undergone extensive testing to ensure its balance and playability. We all know of game sthat should be fantastic but, after publication, turn out to be a mess of errors due to lack of playtesting (the GOSS system comes to mind). I am interested to hear your response. Keith.
Hi Keithlee, In my opinion the game has been playtested enough to ensure its functionality and victory condition balance, assuming no serious strategic errors by one side, as our goal was not to create a "balanced game" but a realistic simulation of probably the most complex hypothetical conflict available. With this level of complexity and options,I think that final results can easily range from catastrophic defeat to outstanding victory, depending on the numbers and seriousness of the mistakes made by each player. To tell you the truth, I don't think you're really interested in an answer, as it seems you already decided the game has not been playtested enough and you took the burden to create a Google+ account to state that.
Fabrizio. Thanks for your answer. You seem to not understand the term 'balanced game' and think a 'realistic simulation' is something different. A balanced game refers to the relative weight of forces and weapons in the games mechanics, that is, in an unbalanced game certain weapons (air, artillery, etc) will operate un an unrealistic fashion when they game is played out over time. Even in very well playtested systems like OCS we can see that this can occur: namely, the scant use of artillery due to supply cost which, one can argue, is ahistorical.
Your comment regarding my google account is most curious: I have had this gmail account for some time, years in fact, but yes I have not had the need to create a Google+ profile until yesterday as this is the first time I have commented on a blog. Some of us just use email accounts for, guess what: email.
Really not sure why you deemed it necessary to make the "I don't think you're really interested in an answer" remark. I have the right to question any seller offering a product, the free market is what it is.
Hello
ReplyDeleteI have browsed through a few posts on this blog with interest. I am curious about the playtest process: in one of your posts you say that you have been working on this game for 18 months. While you obviously have been playing TNW for a long time, 18 months seems a very short period of time to work on a new game before publication, even if it is a derivative of TNW. Many games, especially the larger games, are playtested for at least double that time before publication. For example, some of the larger OCS games are in development and being actively playtested for over 3 years. While I dont doubt for a moment at your OOB is impressive, I am sceptical of a game that has not undergone extensive testing to ensure its balance and playability. We all know of game sthat should be fantastic but, after publication, turn out to be a mess of errors due to lack of playtesting (the GOSS system comes to mind). I am interested to hear your response. Keith.
Hi Keithlee,
DeleteIn my opinion the game has been playtested enough to ensure its functionality and victory condition balance, assuming no serious strategic errors by one side, as our goal was not to create a "balanced game" but a realistic simulation of probably the most complex hypothetical conflict available.
With this level of complexity and options,I think that final results can easily range from catastrophic defeat to outstanding victory, depending on the numbers and seriousness of the mistakes made by each player.
To tell you the truth, I don't think you're really interested in an answer, as it seems you already decided the game has not been playtested enough and you took the burden to create a Google+ account to state that.
Fabrizio. Thanks for your answer. You seem to not understand the term 'balanced game' and think a 'realistic simulation' is something different. A balanced game refers to the relative weight of forces and weapons in the games mechanics, that is, in an unbalanced game certain weapons (air, artillery, etc) will operate un an unrealistic fashion when they game is played out over time. Even in very well playtested systems like OCS we can see that this can occur: namely, the scant use of artillery due to supply cost which, one can argue, is ahistorical.
ReplyDeleteYour comment regarding my google account is most curious: I have had this gmail account for some time, years in fact, but yes I have not had the need to create a Google+ profile until yesterday as this is the first time I have commented on a blog. Some of us just use email accounts for, guess what: email.
Really not sure why you deemed it necessary to make the "I don't think you're really interested in an answer" remark. I have the right to question any seller offering a product, the free market is what it is.